POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

Debunkers are already talking about it. I'd appreciate any responses to the comments below, to help me deal with a particularly loathsome GL on YouTube. (If not, I'm sure I can manage on my own...it'll just take a little bit longer ...)

If he knows what hes talking﻿ about, why does he insist the FDR recorder shows the plane flying just over the West Wing of the White House on its way to the Penty, when even the twoofies pilots admit it shows no such thing?

Why does Dennis the ignorant fux insist the plane was heading 180, made a 330 degree right hand turn, then impact at heading 070. I mean HONESTLY, you fuxing moron, before pretending someone is an expert. Before pretending somone knows what he is talkin gabout, dont you think its a good ideaq to find out if the idiot can do SIMPLE FUXING 3RD GRADE ARITHMETIC FIRST?!?!?!?!??!?!?!

I mean Jesus tittfuxing christ! Even the little drooler picture Dennis drew of the AA77 flight path doesnt even show a 270 degreee turn. Instantly noticeable to anyone not a complete idiot (like Goebbels is) Yet Dennis the Moron keeps insisting a less than 270 degreee turn was an exact 330 degree turn? LMGDAOOOO﻿

Dennis the Moron debunks herself frequently. At one moment (supposedly disproving a claim that data can sit in a buffer for several seconds before being recorded) that the FAR requires the data to be accurately recorded at least once a second. Then dismisses the Radar Altimiter data that disproves the "380 above the light poles" lie due to a magic carpet that was following the plane around, remaining underneath the Radalt ant. making it read falsely low--AND then claiming the Radal data is (contrary to previous claims) ofte ntimes "in lag" by several seconds. Dennis the Moron cant even keep his﻿ story straight. No wonder anyone with the smallest SHRED of aviation and avionics knowledge long ago dismissed his bullshit.

In case anyone believes that Pilots determination that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to have been effortlessly entering the South Tower, was a turning point for me, I had reached that conclusion already in "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", published in OpEdNews in 2008. What Pilots confirmed was simply another piece of the puzzle, not the proof some kind of video fakery had taken place in New York. Likewise, my earlier piece, "What didn't happen at the Pentagon", was published on rense.com and my blog back in 2010. Indeed, I have tracked down an earlier version that appeared on "The Daily Paul" back on 9 June 2009, http://www.dailypaul.com/95834/what-didn-t...at-the-pentagon, So this suggestion that I was "piggybacking" on Dennis is simply absurd. And the idea that I was trading on Pilots late discover that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh was the basis for my arguments about no planes and video fakery is equally absurd. I have been publishing about these subjects for years, where some of the most important studies related to the question are included in the references below.

Morgan Reynolds had to beat up on me for at least 18 months before I could even take seriously the very idea that no Boeings had hit either of the Twin Towers until I realized that video fakery was compatible with real planes, since the videos might have been altered to conceal something about the planes or their interaction with the buildings. At that point, I began to interview a series of students of 9/11 who had done serious research on this subject. I actually interviewed at least fifteen (15) of them, including going through their web sited and multiple videos (over and over) before I became convinced that fakery had to have taken place by Joe Keith's argument that, not only is the entry into the South Tower in violation of Newton's laws, but that, by a frame-by-frame advance, he and others had established that the "plane" had passed through its complete length into the tower in the same number of frames that it had passes through its own length in air--and that this was the case for both the Hezaranhi and Evan Fairbanks's videos. After that, I realized that anyone who denied something was wrong did not know the evidence.

Why mrmitosis would suggest "Of course, Fetzer has made a transparent and opportunistic attempt to use the article to bolster support for his own opinions…inviting people to explain why “we are wrong” (…who’s “we”?), and linking to previous articles which were primarily concerned with NPT and video fakery", on the one hand, and also remark, "Incidentally, Jim manages to restrain himself from mentioning NPT, or anything else exotic, in his introduction – why not, if this is one of the article’s core arguments? Why does he choose to wait for a discussion like this to raise NPT?" is simply ignorant. I had ALREADY PUBLISHED several articles about NPT, including "9/11: Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'" on 20 February 2012, as well as the separate article about "The 9/11 Passenger Paradox" (with Dean Harwell) on 15 March 2012. Dennis and I had discussed them both and I thought it would be valuable to have someone of his background and experience address the Pentagon. So we put it together.

Why mrmitosis would suggest "Of course, Fetzer has made a transparent and opportunistic attempt to use the article to bolster support for his own opinions…inviting people to explain why “we are wrong” (…who’s “we”?), and linking to previous articles which were primarily concerned with NPT and video fakery", on the one hand, and also remark, "Incidentally, Jim manages to restrain himself from mentioning NPT, or anything else exotic, in his introduction – why not, if this is one of the article’s core arguments? Why does he choose to wait for a discussion like this to raise NPT?" is simply ignorant.

I framed my questions exactly how I intended to ask them, Mr Fetzer.

I don’t need to be intimately familiar with your prior research to be curious as to whether or not Dennis agrees with your prior research. Of course, it is my suspicion at this point that he does not necessarily share your opinions regarding faked planes or video. As I explained, there is a vast chasm between (i) questioning the physical evidence relating to the planes and (ii) questioning the physical existence of the planes.

As for video fakery, this can hardly be treated as a pivotal issue, when there isn’t any video evidence of AA77 available to discuss or evaluate.

I stand correctable on any of the above, but until Dennis chooses to step forward with a definitive statement, I think I’m within my rights to raise questions about your involvement in Cimino’s article...before, during and after it appeared at Veterans Today. The way you’ve chosen to participate in the discussion - both pre- and post-publication - just seems to benefit your agenda a little too conveniently.

Another nice example of misunderstanding NPT. It has nothing to do with video fakery per se, which would be any use of videos to convey false or misleading impressions of the events of 9/11. It has to do with the plane. NPT holds that no Boeings crashed at any of the alleged sites--not in Shanksville, not at the Pentagon, not into the North Tower and, most surprisingly, not into the South Tower. So the absence of videos in Shaniksville and at the Pentagon--which exist, of course, but have not been released (except for three that show no more than that single frame originally labeled "plane"--but where video fakery was used in New York, where evidence shows that simulations of planes (four UAVs in the case of the North Tower, what appears to have been a sophisticated hologram in the case of the South) were taken by witnesses to be real planes, even though they were performing feats that no real planes could perform. I recommend you go back and reconsider my studies, which you have not understood.

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Mar 21 2012, 01:01 AM)

I framed my questions exactly how I intended to ask them, Mr Fetzer.

I don’t need to be intimately familiar with your prior research to be curious as to whether or not Dennis agrees with your prior research. Of course, it is my suspicion at this point that he does not necessarily share your opinions regarding faked planes or video. As I explained, there is a vast chasm between (i) questioning the physical evidence relating to the planes and (ii) questioning the physical existence of the planes.

As for video fakery, this can hardly be treated as a pivotal issue, when there isn’t any video evidence of AA77 available to discuss or evaluate.

I stand correctable on any of the above, but until Dennis chooses to step forward with a definitive statement, I think I’m within my rights to raise questions about your involvement in Cimino’s article...before, during and after it appeared at Veterans Today. The way you’ve chosen to participate in the discussion - both pre- and post-publication - just seems to benefit your agenda a little too conveniently.